BEFORE THEIR LGCDSHIPS
KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS, J.S.C. (Presided)
JOHN INYANG OKORO, J.S.C.
AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, J.S.C.
EJEMBI EKO, J.S.C. (Read the Leading Judgment)
UWANI MUSA ABBA AJI, J.S.C.
BETWEEN
ALHAJI MOHAMMED KARAYE
(Trading under the name and style of
United Livestock Dealers Enterprises)
AND
1. LEVI WIKE
2. SOLOMON OHABIKO
3. INNOCENT OSI
(Trading under the name and style of
United Livestock Dealers Enterprises)
…………………….A…………………….
EKO, J.S.C. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): The appellant was a founding member of United Livestock Dealers Enterprises, off Mile 3 Market, Diobu, Port Harcourt. In 1973 United Livestock Dealers Enterprises (hereinafter called “the Union”) was given a piece of land at Mile 1, Biobu Market by the Port Harcourt City Council. Between 1975 and 1983 the appellant, as the plaintiff, was the Vice-Chairman of the Union. It is averred in paragraph 5 of the 2nd amended statement of claim that the Executive Committee of the Union, in which the appellant, as the plaintiff, was the Vice-Chairman did not maintain “proper account”. A new Executive Committee was constituted in 1983, and the appellant was appointed/elected “the treasurer of the union -” a post he held until the disagreement within the Union arose.
The respondents, as defendants, had pleaded in paragraph 11 of the further amended statement of defence that the appellant, as the treasurer, “could not account for the sum of N9,353.10 – which was in his possession.” They relied “on the audit report of the firm of Chartered Accountant, namely: Tamunoibi & Co. of Azikiwe Road, Port Harcourt to show that this amount was not accounted for at the time of audit.” The respondents further alleged that “in 1982 (the appellant) paid N200.00 given to him by the Union” to pay at the Land’s Office to secure the Union’s interest over a piece of land and that he, instead, “obtained the receipt in his own name.”In what appears their justification for terminating the appellants’ membership of the union, the respondents averred inter-alia in paragraph 11 of the further amended statement of defence that by “a letter dated 29th October, 1984, after the Union found (the appellant) was unable to account for huge sums of money that came into his possession for which he (was) being charged to court,” they decided to terminate his membership of the Union. In other words, the appellant was expelled from the union during the pendency of the case at the Magistrate’s Court in which he was being prosecuted
